REVIEW PROCESS

The scientific committee plays a consultative role, assesses adequacy of articles to the thematic field of the journal, takes part in article selection process.

The editorial board is responsible for defining the general policy of the journal, along with the Chief editor and in agreement with the Director of  the Journal. They follow up the correspondence between authors and reviewers.

The referees are appointed for each issue and take part in articles selection and evaluation according to the editorial policy. The peer-review committee is formed by members of the scientific/editorial board or other specialists in the field.

Papers sent to the Editorial Board with a view to publication will be assessed by the members of the Scientific Committee and published solely with the approval of the referees. The authors will receive one of the following answers from the reviewers: accept, no revision needed; accept, but needs minor revision; accept, but needs major revision; to be revised and resubmitted; reject, poor quality/out of scope.

Each paper will be accompanied by an abstract (abstract, keywords; the abstract must state the objectives of the work, the methodology and the main results of the research or presentation) in two languages and include certain personal data (author’s title/ institution, contact data: email address, telephone and fax number).

Author copyright.  Authors have full reproduction, distribution, public communication, and derivative work rights. Authors are responsible for clarifying the right to use the information contained in the papers.

The content of the articles will be checked with plagiarism detection tools. The editorial board always takes reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.

The Editorial Board members will perform an initial assessment establishing the referees with expertise in the field of the paper and will select referees with expertise in the research field; referees will decide on the acceptance of the paper. Articles will be presented to the referees without any indication of the authors’ names.

Papers that fall within the scientific standards will be placed on the waiting list for publication. Papers that are likely to fall within the scientific standards following certain changes will be returned to their authors with the appropriate observations. After scientific review, authors will be notified if a paper has been rejected.

For each paper, in the proposal for publication, reviewers will comment on the topicality of the theme, the thoroughness of the scientific ideas, the author’s credibility and the innovation and originality he/she brings to the field.

Review Criteria

  1. Originality and innovativeness of the ideas or analysis
  2. Competence (the degree of literature awareness in the field and the extent to which this is involved, used or developed in the paper).
  3. Methodology – scientific/methodological quality, manner of treatment of the topic (starting with the design of the paper, the development of its concepts and of the subject), structure of the material, formulation and presentation of the information /analysis, including clarity, accuracy and comprehensibility.
  4. Importance of the topic (the goal of the paper andof the results obtained; the extent to which objectives are achieved and the applicability or implementation).
  5. Other criteria (if necessary).